can we have a vim vs emacs thread?

please?

Why would we pit emacs against such an unworthy contender? Instead I propose emacs with emacs bindings vs VIPER mode

pico

When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!!
ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

EMACS:
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Escape Meta Alt Control Shift
EMACS Makes Any Computer Slow

I tried, /prog/. I tried to like Emacs as I learned Scheme. But I just can't help it. It's bullshit. Emacs is fucking terrible. Vim's where it's at.

Stallman is fat and bloated. Therefore logically Emacs would be as well. Bill Joy is thin and not fat and bloated, so logically vi is not fat and bloated.

>>7
I like your style.

>>5-7
Who let the riff-raff in?

Edit Make And Compile, Stupid

>>9
Shut up.

Sussman uses vim

>>1
Let's dont and say we did.

This thread is now about the...
pleasure of being cummed inside

emacs aside, anyone who still uses the original vi over vim?

>>14
I do. Vim is shit.

Emacs honestly is a great OS. It just lacks a decent text editor.

>>15
You mean this version http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/ ? Or are you even more hardcore?

>>17
nvi, actually. Mostly I use it because of inertia, as it's already installed and works plenty well enough for me.

nano

I seriously don't know how 100MB text editor can be written by anyone sane. That's why I moved to vim. Made some emacs bindings, and is quite fine.

>>20
4/10

>>20
because it is much more than a editor .

i allways used to think vim was useless because emacs has vi bindings builtin, but i guess you have quite a point there.
but i would never switch my beloved emacs for anything else in the world.

such great power

Real men use vi, LISPers have to use emacs so cognitive dissonance make them prefer emacs.  It makes sense though because LISP weenies are not real men.

>>23
I lol'd
>>22
The only advantage to using vi is (it's form of) modal editing and short commands, adding emacs keybindings to vi would be like using carriage wheels on a car (or a cdr for that matter).
>>20
Amusing hyperbole aside, if I wasn't bothered that it was originally written by a psychopath, why would I even blink at the size?

>>24
That isn't hyperbole. If anything, it's an understatement.

The emacs package for my distro (Arch Linux, X11 not installed) would total 149 megabytes upon installation, including the following 32 other packages as dependencies: atk, cairo, compositeproto, damageproto, fixesproto, gnutls, gtk2, hicolor-icon-theme, inputproto, libcroco, libcups, libdatrie, libgsf, librsvg, libtasn1, libthai, libxcomposite, libxcursor, libxdamage, libxfixes, libxi, libxinerama, libxml2, libxpm, libxrandr, libxt, pango, pixman, randrproto, shared-mime-info, xcb-util, and xineramaproto.

On the other hand, vim would consume 29 megabytes after installation and doesn't need any extra dependencies that I don't already have. Note that this is a fairly minimal system, although I do have a few image libraries (libpng, libjpeg, etc.) installed in order to view images on the framebuffer. Emacs (and not vim!) also depends on all of those and more, so 149 megabytes is still a conservative value.

Of course, this is comparing two different applications, and it'd be fairer to look at gvim rather than vim alone, and also to compare a version of emacs that doesn't require x11 packages, so let's do that...

emacs-nox lists alsa-lib as a dependency (wtf), but is otherwise clean; after installation it'd be 80 megabytes. So vim is still the clear winner.

gvim would pull in 30 other packages totaling 94 megabytes. STILL slimmer than the full emacs installation. (For the sake of completeness, those packages are: atk, cairo, compositeproto, damageproto, desktop-file-utils, fixesproto, gnutls, gtk2, inputproto, libcups, libdatrie, libtasn1, libthai, libxcomposite, libxcursor, libxdamage, libxfixes, libxi, libxinerama, libxml2, libxrandr, libxt, pango, pixman, randrproto, shared-mime-info, vim, xcb-util, xineramaproto)

Conclusion: emacs is bigger and fatter than vim, no matter what way you look at it; and citing a size of 100 megabytes for a text editor isn't far off the mark.

>>25
vim would consume 29 megabytes after installation and doesn't need any extra dependencies that I don't already have.
Just like TextMate :3

>>25
The first part of your conclusion is completely beside the point, no-one is, or indeed ever will be, under the impression that emacs is smaller than vim. I am a little wary of your figures, but as I don't care enough to argue, I will concede that point.

>>27
s/that point/the second point/

Eventually Mallocs All Computer Storage

>>27
Well, if you want to see for yourself, get the Arch Linux setup image, run it in VBox or something, and type pacman -S emacs, pacman -S vim, etc.

Or try building any of them from source and see what packages they require in order to build, if you like doing it that way.

My whole post was researched and written as a rebuttal that a figure of 100 megabytes for emacs was "hyperbole"; that I used vim as a comparison was tangential but interesting and on-topic for this thread nonetheless. In any event, no matter what editor and related toolchain you opt for, you'll eventually find yourself pulling a number of packages as dependencies. It's merely a question of whether those dependencies will be useful to you directly, or merely as a side effect of your working environment.

EDIT/TPU

Has anyone ever done an edit.com-alike with curses?

>>25
libthai
WTF

Or try building any of them from source and see what packages they require in order to build, if you like doing it that way.
Who on earth would ever do it that way? Whenever I install from source, I have to ./configure, wait for it to fail, figure out what package it wants, and goto 10. Am I missing the magic command that tells me all the dependency packages a tarball needs to be built?

>>34
That statement was intended for the masochistic sorts and/or anarchists who don't believe in package managers.

>>35
Needed when packages are just outdated, and it does happen often.

>>36
I wish there was an 'Ubuntu Unstable'. I don't want to be frozen to release versions, but I don't want to put up with Debian's foss religious bullshit with my wireless card and nvidia-glx.

Alternatively I wish more people would just make repos for their apps. Ubuntu is the clear winner, so why not just package for it yourself instead of letting some random maintain the package (and fucking it up god knows how)? Someone should really streamline and document the process to make it real easy to host a repo for your app.

>>37
You might not have thought about this yet, but most people don't package specifically for Ubanto because they don't want to associate with a bunch of retarded kids thinking they're the Lunix kings.

>>37
Ubuntu is the clear winner
*snigger*

But that's beside the point. Packaging for specific distros defeats the point of having distro maintainers. It would be retarded to waste valuable developer time on life-support for distros that patently can't satisfy their users' needs.

>>25
┌─[10:27:54]─[~]
└─[#]─> pkgsize vim
Total kilobytes for vim : 18852
CRUX here, much tinier. Also, emacs was… 60? 80? Don't remember exactly, I pkgrm'd it few minutes after building.

Also, on the other machine I've found both packages alredy built, vim is 5,9 MB, emacs 18 MB, both without X and all this shit.

Still, I think both are quite good, it all depends on what you prefer. I was using emacs for a few months, now got back to vim and I must say I felt quite well using both of them. They're not better or worse, it's just the matter of preferences.

>>40
I've got 2 TB external on this laptop.

has prog seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWxtBVT9C_s

>>42
Copy is M-w, what an idiot

>>43
any program that doesn't use ctrl+c for copy fucking sucks why would they change the standard?

any program that doesn't use ⌘C for copy fucking sucks why would they change the standard?

any program that doesn't use left-button drag for copy fucking sucks why would they change the standard?

>>42
I tried Emacs and felt violated afterwards. Never looked at it again.

i like how vim handles x11's clipboard hell

"+p to paste the ctrl+c clipboard
"*p to paste the selection keyboard


dunno how emacs does it, but vim's registers are awesome

>>49
s/keyboard/clipboard/

>>49
Don't forget "~p.

>>51
vim has a lot of registers (clipboards) in which you can put text. you select one with " followed by the name of the register. so e.g. "a would select that a register which you can then paste with p. some registers can only be read from, some (lots) are filled automatically.

http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/change.html#registers

read this and receive a little satori

>>52
what does that do again?

>>51
You have to multiply " and p